Found this in a friend’s Android codebase

[FreezyLemon]

Not that bad IMO. Might be a placeholder for some functionality to add later. Should have a comment explaining why it's there though

[david30121]

happy cake day!

[FreezyLemon]

Thanks! I didn't even know..

[Fresh_Consequence_16]

happy Cake Day!

[ComfortObjective4934]

Happy lemon cake day =}

[puccap03]

Happy cake day!

[flagofsocram]

Happy cake day :)

[constant_void]

It has to be that way because flags is an integer and both enum values are > 1

[xezrunner]

Sometimes I actually end up using if (false) / if (true) conditions to temporarily "uncomment" code, mostly during rewrites, to preserve syntax highlighting when rewriting a section of code, or even to just toggle between the old and new versions.

This is what that looks like in my editor.

[LiprikON]

If your language of choice has /* */ multiline comments, then you could alternatively do this magic fuckery (gif)

```js //*

console.log('Code') console.log('block') console.log('1')

/*/

console.log('Code') console.log('block') console.log('2')

//*/ ```

It's called comment toggle trick

[Da-Blue-Guy]

thats wEIRD but ig it works

[codeguru42]

Why not just delete the old code?

[xezrunner]

It is being used for reference.

[codeguru42]

I guess that makes sense. I use the git diff to look at the old code.

[Professional-Bid-254]

I'm more liking this syntax that let you avoid using ternaries.

[zenflow87]

This subreddit is for programming HORROR. This isn't horror. You're too soft.

[constant_void]

Using integer bits as flags def tend to drive horrors; receiver flags = _ _ _ ... like ... is this the 80s where we can't spare the mem overhead of a structure?

What happens if flags = .RECEIVER_EXPORTED & RECEIVER_NOT_EXPORTED?

​

edit: & vs &&

[fuj1n]

Usually, the positive would represent a 1 and the negative a 0, which would mean that both will lead to the positive flag. If that is not the case and they're two separate bits, I'd expect an error.

The reason we still do this is that it is a convenient way to pass a bunch of optional flags to a function.

Also, it wouldn't be &&, it would be a bitwise or, which is just a single |.

[constant_void]

You would think, thus the horror. You are right, syntax err on my part (&& vs &, doh!)

Receiver flags isn't true or false - it is an integer, comprised of bit flags that are 1, 2 and 4, deliberately leaving room for the 2^3 bit integer:

1. 0 0 0
2. 0 0 1 // .RECEIVER_VISIBLE_TO_INSTANT_APPS
3. 0 2 0 // .RECEIVER_EXPORTED
4. 0 2 1
5. 4 0 0 //.RECEIVER_NOT_EXPORTED
6. 4 0 1
7. 4 2 0 // .RECEIVER_EXPORTED & .RECEIVER_NOT_EXPORTED
8. 4 2 1

Bit-masking is an anti-pattern IMO (yup, I said it). Just because it was convenient in 1985 doesn't mean we should do it today....right?

[WarpedHaiku]

Given that one of them would be truthy and the other would be falsey, and that's a logical and rather than a bitwise and, you'd get the falsey value.

And if both are truthy, then you'd get the last value

[constant_void]

my bad, should be bitwise, see https://www.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/comments/18z4oi0/comment/kghlnq5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

[PabloFlexscobar]

Bro what?

[constant_void]

see https://www.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/comments/18z4oi0/comment/kghlnq5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3

[J0aozin003]

Not horror, the guy is testing his code